PDA

View Full Version : Stanley Ketchel V Harry Greb



Ronald Lipton
07-27-2005, 03:29 PM
I go with Greb on what I saw on film of his powerful body, his fight record and because he handled Tunney in a real fight win and held his own with Dempsey in sparring.

He seemed much stronger than Ketchel.

dnahar
07-27-2005, 04:10 PM
Wow. Double Wow.

I think one important point here is that Ketchel had to make 158 ringside (and even 150-154 ringside in some title fights). He was smaller than Greb and considering what Greb did at higher weights and his iron chin, I think he wins a decision over Ketchel in an extremely dirty fight to nullify each other's punching power.

After the fight is done, they go to a New York speakeasy and do the rematch for free!

Deepak

Kid Achilles
07-29-2005, 06:03 PM
Greb wins on on durability, speed, and craftiness. Ketchel will make him work for his money, and pressure him all the way. Greb is an all time P4P great and naturally larger than Ketchel as well so I don't see Stan faring very well.

Still, you can't discount Ketchel's heavy hands.

old school student
07-31-2005, 11:17 PM
is greb naturally bigger? stanley was 5-9 170, greb was 5-8 high 160's? I think they are similar in statue. this is my personal dream fight. i like both better than mickey walker, or anyone else for the best middleweight between charles mccoy & sugar ray robinson. including Lamotta.
who wins i really don't know:rolleyes
I Think Ketchel was really a machine, he was greb before harry existed he would blow up comp u box stats
he threw from every angle large volume of punches with an amazing ko % and had unlimited stamina(in his prime).
had a chin beyond belief (took a sucker punch from papke & when he didn't expect it and still didn't get koed)
everything you could ever want in a middleweight fighter.
but Greb i have ranked the best ever at middleweight, his resume is as impressive as anyone who ever fought.
But going head to head is different i would guess a greb in 15 rounds (decsion), and take ketchel in 25 rounds:hat

Cezannnne
08-01-2005, 01:12 AM
Stanley Ketchel&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

Age 22

Height-59

Chest Normal-39

Chest Expanded-44

Neck-16

Biceps-17

Forearms-14

Wrists-11

Waist-32

Thighs-22

Fists-14

Reach-70

Ankles-10

Calves-14

Weight-160 lbs.


Harry Greb

Age-29

Height-58

Chest Normal-36

Chest Expanded-41

Neck-15

Biceps-14

Forearms-11

Wrists-7

Waist-32

Thighs-21

Fists-11

Reach-71

Ankles-8

Calves-13

Weight-159 lbs.


A recent post stated that Harry Greb was naturally,.... bigger?
As I recall, from what I was taught, is that according to Stanley Ketchel's measurements, he is bigger in every way, except in waist, and reach. So, if size matters from what I read in that post, I have to favor Ketchel, in this fantasy fight.















































-----------------------
-----------------------

naf2003
08-01-2005, 02:39 AM
11" wrists and 17.5 inch biceps on Ketchel?

Those measurements are obviously out of whack.

It is doubtful any lineman in pro football, regardless of weight has 11" wrists. 17.5 inch biceps on a 5-9.5, 160 pound man would be enormous. The 14.5 inch forearm is also out of line. Even the 5 inch difference between the normal and expanded chest measurements are questionable.

The measurements listed for boxers are seldom accurate.

Cezannnne
08-01-2005, 04:59 AM
It's seems you took those Ketchel measurements very personal... I hope you didn't take it that way. I'm sorry you don't believe it and can't accept it naf2003 that's my whole point Stanley physically was huge for his 5'9" 1/2 size. that's what's so incredible and extremely rare for a middleweight. But have it your way, what you say go's. In that case I guess Harry Greb's measurements are inaccurate also. Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate the measurements are Stanley's are still bigger.

dnahar
08-01-2005, 05:45 AM
I had stated that Greb was bigger, but I didn't mean it in terms of physical dimensions but in terms of weight. Ketchel had to be 154-158 ringside for his title fights while Greb could weigh in 160 day of and fight at about 165. In a fantasy fight, I guess that would be neutralized but Greb did fight and beat bigger guys routinely while Ketchel did not. I favor Greb via decision in a dirty fight.

Deepak

naf2003
08-01-2005, 11:17 AM
The measurements didn't upset me. I have no idea if Greb's measurements are right or not but they are not as out of line as the ones listed for Ketchel. I have no idea of who would win a fight between Ketchel and Grebb. I have only seen bad video of Ketchel and I have only seen Greb on video a few times. I have not seen enough of either of them to have an opinion on the fight.

I was just pointing out that those measurements are completely out of line. If you don't believe me, go on a power lifting or strength site and ask if a 5-9.5 , 160 pound man could have 11" wrists.

Cezannnne
08-01-2005, 05:53 PM
Even Boxing writer Stanley Weston had to comment about Stanley Ketchel's hands and wrists several times in some old boxing magazines and he was suprised by their size as well. Ketchel broke both of his wrists in his third fight with Joe Thomas and his bones didn't grow back right and the calcium deposit started to build which made his hands and wrists very massive they almost looked deformed. DO you recall Naf2003 seeing Ketchel in enormous pillow gloves to cover his hands, wrists. They made those special gloves not just because of his physical size, but his power was too devestating for sparring partners or opponents.

One other thing naf2003. I've been in a weight lifting gym and was an amatuer boxer myself. My boxing trainer told me once that Stanley Ketchel had the most powerful wrists he ever seen. If you still don't beleive me, give me your email and I will gladly send you a photograph of his wrists. That's better than going through the trouble to some weight lifting gym.

Cezannnne
08-01-2005, 08:14 PM
Or weight lifting website.

rocky111
08-04-2005, 04:56 PM
Everybody of note in the game as far as writers who saw them both in action many times seemed to feel Stanley Ketchel would win. That says alot.

Ronald Lipton
08-04-2005, 07:11 PM
I would like to see that picture of Ketchel's wrists.

blkleopard21@aol.com

Mr E
08-04-2005, 07:12 PM
I have huge respect for Stanley Ketchel, but I favor Greb here. At one time or another, the guy beat: Frank Klaus, Jeff Smith, Gunboat Smith, Jack Dillon, Battling Levinsky, Kid Norfolk, Mike Gibbons, K.O. Bill Brennan, Mickey Walker, Billy Miske, Tommy Gibbons, Mike McTigue, Tiger Flowers, Tommy Loughran, Jimmy Slattery and Gene Tunney -- in other words, virtually every major middleweight and light-heavyweight fighting at the time -- and most of the heavyweights. How is that even possible for a guy who weighed 160? How do you bet against a guy like that???!!!

Cezannnne
08-05-2005, 05:48 AM
I have always had doubt on Greb's greatness. Way too many people have said he was a dirty fighter by eye witnesses. The reason why he has such a incredible record and beaten so many heavier men is because he cheated all the time. I favor Ketchel in this fight because he was one middleweight who was fantastic and went by the rules. Fighting very dirty would be the only way Greb could beat Ketchel. But I think Ketchel would be strong enough to make Harry pay for his cheating. If a today's referee was in the ring with Ketchel and Greb. Greb would be quickly disqualified from his sneaky tricks. I'd rather have Sugar Ray Robinson as number one middleweight. Just because he wasn't dirty. Sugar Ray, Ketchel and Marvin Hagler are my top 3.

StingerKarl
08-10-2005, 03:23 PM
Having never seen Greb in sustained action; I was very impressed with Ketchel, though.
Both were Greats-but just for the heck of it I'd say Ketchel.
Now; I can't tell you how I think he would have done it-as I don't know Greb's style or anything.
I know that he was a constant puncher-but that's not saying a whole heck of a lot.
That seems to be about the only thing anyone can say about the guy.
I imagine as many people would say Greb would win as Ketchel would have.
Karl

JimmyShimmy
08-11-2005, 12:40 PM
As Mr E has pointed out how you can doubt Greb with such pedigree is crazy.

I have only seen Greb in training-shadow boxing/skipping and whatnot. You get a feel for his 'all over the place' style.

Harry despised training though so he is probably not moving out of first gear in his recorded sessions-he considered his fights to be his training.

I'd favour Greb for his ability to bamboozle.

I'd bet on him to get land those 'pitter-patter' shots and be outta there for Ketchels swings. I hear Greb was also very physically strong-they guy had a pretty muscular solid build mind.

While I favour Greb it's not a fair or accurate pick-It couldn't hope to be.

To my knowing the only existent Ketchel fights are his last fight with Papke and fight with Johnson-neither depict his true ability as a fighter. All you can see is he had power by flooring Johnson while the champ was in cruise control.

His last fight with Papke was a slopping points victory-his third fight with him (does not exist) was supposedly a great battering as Stanley craved for victory after his rival sucker punched him at the beginning of their second fight which set him up for doom.

With no fight film of Greb and no film to compliment Ketchel you can't picture how the styles would gel.

Looking at their records it's a close/action packed fight.

Cezannnne
08-15-2005, 06:08 PM
I will show it to both of you. There is a particular picture I want to show you, but the photo is in a book. I don't want to rip the page out. As soon as I scan it I'll send it to you.

bodyblow
08-15-2005, 06:09 PM
I hate to burst your bubble Cezanne but your tale of the tape is out of wack. This is the tale of the tape for Ketchel published by famed referee George Siler just before Ketchels first fight with Papke:

Age 21
Height 5 foot 9 1/2
Neck 16
Chest 39 1/2
Biceps 12 1/2 relaxed
Forearms 11 7/8
Wrist 7 1/8
Waist 30 1/2
Thigh 21 3/4
Calf 13
Ankle 8 7/8
Reach 72 1/2

How does one add 5 inches to his biceps in a year or less, much less the discrepencies in ankle and wrist which shouldnt change dramatically during an adults life?

I wouldnt put too much weight in what Stan Weston said about Ketchel, IF Weston was even alive during Ketchels lifetime he would have been a baby and certainly never met the man. His opinion on Ketchels wrists is no more valid than anyone else here who has seen photos and film on the man.

Kid Achilles
08-15-2005, 07:45 PM
I too would like to see the photograph of Stanley's wrists. If the 11" measurement is correct it must have been taken further down the arm. An 8" wrist (and by that I mean the actual wrist right before the hand, not further down in forearm territory where I suspect many boxers measure) is considered very large.

kid_achilles@hotmail.com

Sebastian Guerriero
08-15-2005, 08:18 PM
I would like that to see that photograph too. My old coach used to speak about wrist power and how important it was for a good puncher. If you could email me the photo I would very much like to see it. Thank you.

Neversaydie13@hotmail.com

mike21
08-15-2005, 10:26 PM
to me these are the two greatest middleweights. regarding ketchel's wrist size; a picture is the only way to tell because boxer's measurements are reported but often not ever taken; the manager or whoever just writes it down: nobody realley cares. ex. dempsey/ 's fist was once measured at 12 or something like this and his wrists from 8 to 9 and half; in reality both his fists and wrists were emense- just check out the famous fists collection that was at the ring now at the ibhof. to me greb almost has to win by decision do to his record and toughness, but i would never bet on it against the fiercest, hardest hitter, and one of the toughest and best conditioned middles ever. most who saw both picked ketchel; maybe because he hit so hard and greb did not.

Sebastian Guerriero
08-16-2005, 08:16 PM
I finally saw the photo and I was impressed by the size of Ketchel's wrists/hands. His hands especially seem freakishly big. I'm willing to believe that his measurements were not that of a normal man his size. I wouldn't want to be hit by those big meathooks he had. :x Offhand, I can't think of a fighter that height I've seen who had hands that big in a photo...possibly Igor Vovchanchyn, who is a freak of nature hand size wise. Whatever the case, Ketchel had some damn big hands.

Kid Achilles
08-17-2005, 12:19 AM
His hands and wrists look strong to me, like the hands of a blacksmith or old time strongman. However if the measurement of 11" is accurate, is MUST have been taken further down the wrist near the top of the foreman. 8 inches is an impressive measurement for the actual wrist (where the fist meets the arm) of a person, heavyweight or otherwise. 9 inches is exceptional. 11 inches is almost comparable to Andre the Giant.

I think Ketchel looks very strong in that photgraph but there is no way his wrists were in the same league as Andre's.

As for the bicep measurement, there is no way Ketchel's arms were greater than 14". I've seen him pose with Papke and various other fighters and he does not look noticeably thicker in the upper arm than his middleweight opponents. His arms were much thinner than Jack Johnson's 16" guns.

bodyblow
08-17-2005, 01:39 AM
To put these ridiculous measurements into perspective: The only two heavyweights who had Biceps of 17 inches or more were JESS WILLARD and PRIMO CARNERA(!) giants even by todays standards. No way does a man who is under six feet and can make 154 (what he made for the first Papke fight) have biceps of 17 inches, wrists of 11 inches (Willards were 10 inches and Primos were 9), etc. those measurements are so comical that they resemble more of a gorilla than a human, especially a human of Ketchels dimensions.

Cezannnne
08-18-2005, 09:17 PM
Why Bodyblow is taking these measurements so personally is beyond me? I never could imagine a human being getting so bent out of shape by some numbers he doesn't want to believe or accept. I'm so Sorry if I offended you. But you didn't show me anything new with your tale of the tape... I have the same thing. I have very rare Ketchel measurements that will refute Mr. Silers word. You said the other day that the statment I made was very sad. I think for somebody to be so distressed by a tale of the tape is the saddest of all.

mike21
08-23-2005, 09:24 PM
ketch was my favorite middle weight. any way to post the picture here ? also, a ketcel researcher has told me that the papke fight when papke suckerpunced keth, that never occurred. it was not in any contempory fight accounts. any info?

dnahar
08-23-2005, 09:25 PM
I'm compiling a list of measurements for fighters that I need Tale of the Tapes for. Could I pm you some of the fighters I need?

Deepak

Roberto Aqui
08-24-2005, 12:32 AM
Let's keep in mind that there are no uniform standards established by which all these historical measurements are taken. I would guestimate that any measurements might well have a margin of error of up to 30%.

bodyblow
08-24-2005, 02:36 AM
30 percent??? We arent talking about the metric system vs the our system here in the states. Inches to inches. I can see it wavering a bit here and there based on weight, where the measurements on are taken on the anatomy, etc but giving a middleweight the measurements of some of the largest heavyweights in history is another matter. Thats not a mistake that just exaggeration any way you slice it. An exaggeration based on the word of a man who likely wasnt born when Ketchel died (Stan Weston) as opposed to the measurements of a man who knew Ketchel and was in his camp taking the measurements himself which I listed (George Siler). Cezanne can believe whichever measurements he wishes but as an perported author of a bio on Ketchel he should be careful where he credits his sources. Cezanne sent me a private message to rebut this evidence and in so doing I questioned him about his obvious bias and how that would effect his book, his reply lays bare his motivations in wanting continue the myth of Ketchel being larger than life (literally): "Perhaps, if it is perceived to be biased, it may balance out all the negativity many others have desparaged his career life, and personal life with." I always thought a biographers job was to present and fair and balanced portait of subject warts and all. I didnt realise it was considered prudent to spread more myth and rumour as a means of bring balance to the discussion...

Kid Achilles
09-04-2005, 09:14 PM
Like I've seen, there is no way Ketchel had those measurements. We've all seen him in action or posing with other middleweights of the time and his arms do not appear significantly bigger than those adversaries. All one needs to do is look at a photograph of Ketchel and see that he does not have biceps that rival 6'3 1/2" 220 lbs. George Foreman.

As far as the wrist goes, at 11" it would be the same size as his average middleweight opponent's fists. Those proportions, on a 5'8" body, might not look out of place on a monstrous sufferer of acromegaly like the Swedish Angel, Maurice Tillet, but they couldn't exist on a lean middleweight like Ketchel.

I am interested in your biography on Ketchel, but you should reconsider your stance on this issue of Ketchel's measurements.

drmbowen
03-27-2012, 11:28 PM
Yeah man, don't know where our buddy conjured up those measurements on Stanley. Looks like they were pirated from a 2012 NFL tight end!




Stanley Ketchel&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

Age 22

Height-59

Chest Normal-39

Chest Expanded-44

Neck-16

Biceps-17

Forearms-14

Wrists-11

Waist-32

Thighs-22

Fists-14

Reach-70

Ankles-10

Calves-14

Weight-160 lbs.


Harry Greb

Age-29

Height-58

Chest Normal-36

Chest Expanded-41

Neck-15

Biceps-14

Forearms-11

Wrists-7

Waist-32

Thighs-21

Fists-11

Reach-71

Ankles-8

Calves-13

Weight-159 lbs.


A recent post stated that Harry Greb was naturally,.... bigger?
As I recall, from what I was taught, is that according to Stanley Ketchel's measurements, he is bigger in every way, except in waist, and reach. So, if size matters from what I read in that post, I have to favor Ketchel, in this fantasy fight.















































----------------------------------------------

drmbowen
03-27-2012, 11:33 PM
These stats make sense the other looked like and NFL tight end


I hate to burst your bubble Cezanne but your tale of the tape is out of wack. This is the tale of the tape for Ketchel published by famed referee George Siler just before Ketchels first fight with Papke:

Age 21
Height 5 foot 9 1/2
Neck 16
Chest 39 1/2
Biceps 12 1/2 relaxed
Forearms 11 7/8
Wrist 7 1/8
Waist 30 1/2
Thigh 21 3/4
Calf 13
Ankle 8 7/8
Reach 72 1/2

How does one add 5 inches to his biceps in a year or less, much less the discrepencies in ankle and wrist which shouldnt change dramatically during an adults life?

I wouldnt put too much weight in what Stan Weston said about Ketchel, IF Weston was even alive during Ketchels lifetime he would have been a baby and certainly never met the man. His opinion on Ketchels wrists is no more valid than anyone else here who has seen photos and film on the man.